What do you think? There are definitely interesting parallels, not just rhetorically, although nothing for which others couldn't also qualify. I'm happy to say that Obama is far less bombastic and long-winded. His concern for the Republic, however, seems similar, as well as his high ideals, law, and "novus homo" background.

Let's just hope that Obama only mimics the beginning of Cicero's career, and not the end.

PS Did anyone else make it too the inauguration? My review: it was crowded.

I'm not an expert in Rhetoric (in fact I'm only beginning to study it after being deprived of it in school) but in my opinion president John F. Kennedy's inaugural address sounds a bit better in comparison. As of yet I have not analyzed both speeches in detail. Perhaps the richness in style (e.g. figures of speech) is probably equal in both Obama and Kennedy's addresses. However, for me, voice modulation is also a big factor, and I much prefer the stately, steady pace of Kennedy.

His concern for the Republic, however, seems similar, as well as his high ideals, law, and "novus homo" background.

I disagree. Obama could not care less for the Republic. He's an immoral opportunist without any principles of human decency. If anything, he kind of reminds me of Bill "Bubba" Clinton, except I don't think he, unlike Clinton, will be screwing any of the young interns at the White House.

Did anyone else make it too the inauguration? My review: it was crowded.

I wasn't invited (not that I would go). In any case, I found it sad that so many people attended. Where were these people when the US government (Obama included) was selling out their nation to the Wall Street hucksters and bankers?

best,

~PeterD

Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just.---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

Amadeus wrote:There you go again, PeterD. Can't you be a little nicer? Obama is not your president.

There was no disrespect towards thesaurus. I simply disagreed.

Indeed Obama is not my president. Thankfully, my parents had the foresight to chose Canada instead of the United States. (Love you mom. Love you dad.) But I can express an opinion on the man's character or lack thereof, no?

I sincerely meant what I said about Obama, Amadeus. For example, when Israel started bombing the hell out of Gaza, killing hundreds of civilians in just the first few days of slaughter (please, let's be honest and call it a "slaughter" and not a "war."), the President-elect said nothing. Absolutely nothing. All he had to do was say "STOP" and the carnage would have stopped. Period. Instead, he advised his handlers to say (not in those exact words, obviously) that we have only one president at a time. That's funny... I seem to recall that when Russia had invaded Georgia last year, Obama---who was, ironically enough, in vacation in Hawaii as he was in this instance as well---immediately issued a statement condemning Russia AND expressed his deep concerns for the wellbeing of the people of Georgia.

Deep concern for the wellbeing of the people of Georgia, nada for the hapless Palestinians of Gaza. Now, what does that tell you about the guy's character, Amadeus?

Can't you be a little nicer?

I am nice guy, just ask ThomasGR.

Take care.

best,

~PeterD

Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just.---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

PeterD wrote:He's [Obama is] an immoral opportunist without any principles of human decency.

Good Lord Almighty, I hope so! That's our only saving grace! The other alternative, the one I really fear, is that Obama is a true believer in the social democratic New World Order. That would bode much worse for civilization as we know it.

I'm glad to see that Textkit has renewed my general lack of respect for many Classics enthusiasts.

Grow a spine, silly thesaurus!

Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just.---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

PeterD wrote:He's [Obama is] an immoral opportunist without any principles of human decency.

Good Lord Almighty, I hope so! That's our only saving grace! The other alternative, the one I really fear, is that Obama is a true believer in the social democratic New World Order. That would bode much worse for civilization as we know it.

Out of sheer interest I'd like to know about New World Order and social democracy... I am condused where the sarcasm ends or begins in this post of yours that I quoted. BTW, I am on a much more positive opinion of Obama that PeterD.

Estoniacus Inoriginale wrote:Out of sheer interest I'd like to know about New World Order and social democracy... I am condused where the sarcasm ends or begins in this post of yours that I quoted. BTW, I am on a much more positive opinion of Obama that PeterD.

I was being a little sarcastic about the New World Order stuff, but other than that... I am not a fan of socialism, whether democratically chosen or not. Most people here have some idea what bread & circuses, debasing the currency, etc., did for the Roman Empire. I'm afraid socialism will lead to similar results for Western civilization, and I consider Obama to be a socialist (he would most definitely be called a social democrat were he a European politician), and so I am ... less than thrilled ... by Obama's election. I really do hope that Obama is a typically corrupt and cynical politician, and not a true believer in socialist ideology. I think that would be much better for the USA and the West in general, as it would mean that our descent into pure socialism (terrible economy ala the Soviet Union, government control of political discourse, no real personal freedom, etc.) would be slower. Think of Bill Clinton vs. Hillary Clinton. He was very socialist-leaning, but he was also a typically pragmatic (i.e. corrupt and cynical) politician, so we didn't get saddled with, for instance, a socialized medical system (to which I am opposed). If Hillary (more of a "true believer" than Bill, IMO) had been president instead of Bill, she quite possibly would have fought harder for socialized medicine, and won. So, from my point of view, cynical and corrupt is better than idealist, if the idealist is a socialist.

I think that would be much better for the USA and the West in general, as it would mean that our descent into pure socialism (terrible economy ala the Soviet Union, government control of political discourse, no real personal freedom, etc.) would be slower.

It was your country's descent into unfettered capitalism that got you into this terrible economic mess. It's "pure socialism" that's trying to get you out of it.

Seriously, these words have never seemed so apt. I actually think of "effrenata audacia" every time this guy opens his mouth.

Why is everyone freaking out over Blagojevich? Has he committed some ghastly crime? He didn't actually sell a senate seat. He simply thought about selling it. A good lawyer, if he can afford one, should easily get him an acquital. Btw, aren't most, if not all, political offices for sale?

Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just.---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

PeterD wrote:It was your country's descent into unfettered capitalism that got you into this terrible economic mess. It's "pure socialism" that's trying to get you out of it.

That's just plain untrue. We've never had "unfettered capitalism", and, alas, aren't anywhere close to it now. The main causes of the credit crunch, as I see them, are the Community Restructuring Act which caused huge amounts of bad housing debt, and the Fed's inflationary policies. As for the so-called stimulus bill, more and more news is coming out every day about how it's nothing but pork, pork, pork. I heard today that $140 million is allocated to climate modelling. This is supposed to stimulate the economy how? Giving me that money would do more to stimulate the economy that spending it on eco-wacko flame fanning.

Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just.---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just.---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

If that says what I think it says, no way. I'm not nearly advanced enough to express my thoughts in Greek. Besides, this is the Open Board, not the Agora. It's supposed to be here so we can "chat about off-topic issues and get to know each other". What better way to get to know each other than by discussing politics? I've never agreed with the old canard that one shouldn't talk about religion or politics in polite company. That only eliminates about two thirds of everything there is that's interesting to talk about. Many of you here seem to me to be way too afraid of ... spirited ... political discourse. I agree, that thread that William locked got entirely out of control, but I, at least, am able to disagree strongly with others without popping a blood vessel in my head.

My opinion is, all ἔργα and no παιδιά make Ἀλέξανδρος a dull παῖς. There, that's about the best I can do right now.

I don't even know what it says---and I wrote it. That's because my IE browser lately has not been properly representing the Greek characters, including the pitch and breathing marks, here and on other sites. Anyone have any ideas?

What better way to get to know each other than by discussing politics?

In winter, I prefer a roll in the snow. In spring, summer, and fall---a roll in the hay. That's how I get to know a person.

Many of you here seem to me to be way too afraid of ... spirited ... political discourse.

It's baffling. I sense that many here would rather discuss topics such as the science and evolution of female orgasms than politics.

I agree, that thread that William locked got entirely out of control, but I, at least, am able to disagree strongly with others without popping a blood vessel in my head.

The thread in question did not get out of control, let alone "entirely out of control." True, things got a little emotional at times. But what do you expect---it was a serious topic. The horrid images from Gaza are coming to us now. If you see the hell that befell those people, you're going to freak. Furthermore, if William preferred that we keep a stiff upper lip throughout the carnage... sorry, but no can do. Blood runs through my veins, not formaldehyde. And, finally, my "apologies" to Bob Manske of Waunakee, Wisconsin (zip code pending) for having brought the topic to his attention. For guys like him, it's out of sight, out of mind---just like Waunakee, Wisconsin.

Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just.---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

Lex wrote: I've never agreed with the old canard that one shouldn't talk about religion or politics in polite company. That only eliminates about two thirds of everything there is that's interesting to talk about.

Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just.---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

Lex wrote: I've never agreed with the old canard that one shouldn't talk about religion or politics in polite company. That only eliminates about two thirds of everything there is that's interesting to talk about.

Wholesale thread topic hijacking, however, is not cool.

OK, fair enough. But I get the feeling that, if overtly political posts were made in new threads, they would still be frowned on by the ... stuffier ... members here. Besides, Obama = Cicero was going nowhere.

Lex wrote: I've never agreed with the old canard that one shouldn't talk about religion or politics in polite company. That only eliminates about two thirds of everything there is that's interesting to talk about.

Wholesale thread topic hijacking, however, is not cool.

OK, fair enough. But I get the feeling that, if overtly political posts were made in new threads, they would still be frowned on by the ... stuffier ... members here. Besides, Obama = Cicero was going nowhere.

Would you please create another thread for you and PeterD to ramble in? As Annis suggested: If you don't like my topic, don't post in it. Come to think of it, if you want lively discussions of politics beyond what Textkit seems to be offering you, why don't you hang out on other relevant forums instead of trolling this one?

thesaurus wrote:Would you please create another thread for you and PeterD to ramble in?

Fine.

thesaurus wrote:Come to think of it, if you want lively discussions of politics beyond what Textkit seems to be offering you, why don't you hang out on other relevant forums instead of trolling this one?

If Jeff and William don't want off-topic (non-Classics) subject matter discussed here, maybe they should post new rules and change the name/description of this board from the "Open Board" ("This is our general purpose board. Use this board to introduce yourself, chat about off-topic [emphasis added] issues and get to know each other.") to something that more accurately describes the intended function of this board?

thesaurus wrote:Would you please create another thread for you and PeterD to ramble in? As Annis suggested: If you don't like my topic, don't post in it.

What are you rambling about, thesaurus? I was one of the first to reply to your silly (see below, please) topic. If you had participated in your topic, there wouldn't be any "rambling." Nothing is more rude than starting a topic and not participating in it.

thesaurus wrote:Come to think of it...

That's the problem, thesaurus,... you weren't thinking. If you were, you'd never post something so silly as "Obama=Cicero." I'm curious... what were you on when you gushed, "His concern for the Republic, however, seems similar, as well as his high ideals, law, and 'novus homo' background"?

thesaurus wrote:... why don't you hang out on other relevant forums instead of trolling this one?

Trolling? Only a troll would title a topic "Obama=Cicero"---unless, of course, he was just being silly. Were you trolling or being just silly, thesaurus?

PS Lex, I was kidding about the "roll in the hay." Besides, I don't think we are each other's type.

Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just.---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis